Photographic philosophy

Is photography just capturing what’s already in front of your lens?

Well yes, but only in the broadest sense. I differentiate here between what I call “happy snaps” - just a quick shot of whatever takes your fancy, and photographic images, which for me are a more considered view of the world. 

To make a finished image from that first captured photograph the photographer has to think about many things. 

• The subject - what object or area is going to be presented to the viewer as the main interest.

• The light - where it is coming from, what colour it is - from the time of day to the cloud cover to the surroundings, how bright it is on the subject and how the subject and its background and surroundings contrast with and against each other. 

• Framing - how much background is included along with the subject, is it in the centre or offset, will the image go up to the edge or have a surround. 

• The viewpoint - with the subject selected, where does the photographer place the camera? Near or far; above, in line or below; from the left, in front or from the right; …

• Camera settings - sensitivity of the film or sensor to light (also affecting noise in the image); exposure time controlling how much movement to capture (and to a lesser extent depth of colour) and lens aperture affecting depth of field (how much of the image is in or out of focus).

• Developing, or post-processing - the manipulation of the image subsequent to the initial capture.

• Presentation - how the final image is to be displayed, whether via a computer screen or a printed format, colour or monochrome, portrait or landscape or square and large or small.

There are many, many essays, theses, reports, discussions, etc. etc. dissecting, espousing and deliberating each aspect of the above. We couldn’t read them all in one lifetime.

The final image, the ”photograph”, should show that aspect of the world the photographer envisaged, that they want to draw attention to, that they want the world to see. It might be a landscape, a leaf, a seashore or a face. It might be naturally or artificially lit, in or out of focus, bland or bright. It will be an aspect of nature but as seen in the mind's eye of the photographer.

Is it just capturing what’s already in front of your lens? I don‘t think, at this level, it is. What is in front of the lens is just the beginning.

What I think makes a good photo

Take a stately home. Someone famous/rich/well-connected spent a lot of money building it. A well known architect and/or a designer came up with the plans and built it. Someone made an estimate of how long it would take to build and how much it would cost. If it was an ugly, bland building but built to the original cost and to the original time estimate, would you go and see it?

In photography, when they start getting serious, many people want to move from the “auto” setting on their camera to using all the other settings available. They get very heated about ISO numbers and “f” stops and shutter speed, about exposure and a host of other things.

If you took a photo of a beige wall, perfectly in focus, perfect lighting, everything perfect, would that make it a wonderful photo people would queue up to view?

People go to see stately homes because they are beautifully designed, using the best materials handled by craftsmen. They don’t care about the cost and how long it took to build.

People look at photographs because the subject and the composition are excellent. Not because the photographer excelled at all the technicalities. It needs to be something well presented that an audience wants to see. And here we cross between a forensic depiction of the image in front of the camera, and an artistic impression of the same. With the camera we can make different things in or out of focus, we can capture motion (blur), we can change the quantity and quality of light, we can make things clear or noisy. In post-production we can get rid of things we don’t want to present, we can change the depth of colour, the light, enhance different objects or areas. We can present an object or tell a story. It will be the image that was in front of the camera - but presented in the way the photographer wants to show it.

"𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵. 𝘈 𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘦𝘮, 𝘢 𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘺, 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺.

𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦, 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 - 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺"

Berenice Abbott.

I view my photography as the portrayal of a view as I imagine it, rather than a forensic "warts and all" photo. I never add anything to my images, and I rarely take anything away, but some judicious cropping, contrast and colour balance can work wonders!